Site Mobile Navigation

Environment And Science: Danes Rebuke A 'Skeptic'

A branch of the Danish Research Agency has concluded that Prof. Bjorn Lomborg, an author whose upbeat analysis of environmental trends has been embraced by conservatives, displayed ''scientific dishonesty'' in his popular book, ''The Skeptical Environmentalist.''

Professor Lomborg, who has a doctorate in political science and teaches statistics at the University of Aarhus, has portrayed the book as an unbiased scientific refutation of dire pronouncements by environmental groups. But it has been attacked as deeply flawed by many environmental scientists since its publication in English in 2001 by Cambridge University Press.

Many experts have said that environmental conditions, in most cases, are not nearly as good as Professor Lomborg portrays them, but also not nearly as bad as some environmental groups and scientists have said.

The Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty, after a six-month review following several complaints filed by scientists, issued a 17-page report yesterday concluding that the book displayed ''systematic one-sidedness.''

''Objectively speaking,'' the committees found, ''the publication of the work under consideration is deemed to fall within the concept of scientific dishonesty,'' as defined by Danish rules for scientific integrity.

But because Dr. Lomborg was not found grossly negligent, he could not be found formally to have been scientifically dishonest, the report said.

The committee said it found no evidence that Professor Lomborg deliberately tried to mislead readers, which would have been a graver issue, and settled on a relatively mild rebuke, concluding, ''The publication is deemed clearly contrary to the standards of good scientific practice.''

The committees, divisions of the Danish Research Agency, are composed of a variety of scientists and headed by a judge from the Danish High Court.

In a telephone interview, Professor Lomborg, 38, defended the book and challenged the committees to come up with specific examples of errors or bias.

''You can't say I'm scientifically dishonest or in breach of good scientific conduct unless you point the finger and say this is the smoking gun,'' he said. ''It's like saying you committed murder but we won't tell you who you killed. It's impossible for me to defend myself.''

An error has occurred. Please try again later.

You are already subscribed to this email.

He said the committees' conclusion could get him fired from his new position as director of the Danish Institute for Environmental Assessment, in which he reviews the effectiveness of government spending on environmental programs. Government officials, however, told Danish news organizations that the criticism of the book did not jeopardize Professor Lomborg's job.

Cambridge University Press has also been criticized by scientists for publishing the book. Officials at the publishing house declined to comment on the findings, saying they had not had a chance to read them.

The report did not cite specific examples, but asserted that the book -- although presented in the style of a scientific treatise, with copious footnotes and diagrams -- was actually ''a provocative debate-generating paper.''

It extensively cited a long critique of Professor Lomborg's book that was published in Scientific American last year. Professor Lomborg and his supporters said that critique was itself biased and written by scientists who have long portrayed the environment as dangerously degraded.

The book -- a dense review of data on forests, climate change, food supplies, population growth and other issues -- has not been a runaway best seller but has been widely cited by conservative groups, commentators and elected officials who oppose strict environmental regulations.

At the same time, the book posed a sharp challenge to environmental groups and many scientists who have long spoken of looming ecological and climatic catastrophes that have yet to materialize.

''The environment is a field where, when people do some light calculations like Lomborg did, it's easy to argue for a happy-times kind of conclusion,'' said Dr. Peter H. Raven, the director of the Missouri Botanical Garden and president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

But such findings should not be portrayed as science, he said, adding, ''This is a just outcome that ought to bring his credibility to a halt except for those who desperately want to believe what he says.''